Author
Topic: Not watching game. (Read 3916 times)

No it is exactly what I was thinking of. Just got the name wrong. It is Bill C-16, not Bill 316.

OK, C16. It does not criminalize pronoun usage. This is an politically motivated interpretaton of a bill to simply extend some protections that were already in the law. But then again, what do I know? Facts are not important. Perceptions and agendas are what count. Decide what is right, then find sources that support your belief. By the bye, claymaker, this is a general statement, not a specific indictment of you.

Also, there is now outrage that California has passed a law that allegedly mandates up to a year in prison and up to a $1,000 fine for not using the proper gender pronoun in a nursing home, allowing people to dress and see who they want, use the bathroom they prefer, etc. I've read the bill, and didn't find that specifidally addressed. Wait and see. This is another "outrage topic" that is probably being misrepresented. Just a guess. We'll see.

No it is exactly what I was thinking of. Just got the name wrong. It is Bill C-16, not Bill 316.

OK, C16. It does not criminalize pronoun usage. This is an politically motivated interpretaton of a bill to simply extend some protections that were already in the law. But then again, what do I know? Facts are not important. Perceptions and agendas are what count. Decide what is right, then find sources that support your belief. By the bye, claymaker, this is a general statement, not a specific indictment of you.

Also, there is now outrage that California has passed a law that allegedly mandates up to a year in prison and up to a $1,000 fine for not using the proper gender pronoun in a nursing home, allowing people to dress and see who they want, use the bathroom they prefer, etc. I've read the bill, and didn't find that specifidally addressed. Wait and see. This is another "outrage topic" that is probably being misrepresented. Just a guess. We'll see.

It's fine. It's one of those laws that seems harmless and has good intentions on it's face, but it is clearly a stab at criminalizing speech.

I've heard about the similar nursing home law. Again, good intentions but last time I checked calling people names they don't like is not a crime.

The law amends the Criminal Code by adding "gender identity or expression" to the definition of "identifiable group" in section 318.[7][8] Section 318 makes it a criminal offence to advocate or promote genocide against members of an identifiable group, which now includes gender identity or gender expression. Since the definition of "identifiable group" is also used in s 319 of the Code, the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression. - A general loophole you won't on any site analyzing the bill, but you will find it on Wikipedia.

The law also adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. This section is part of the sentencing provisions and makes gender identity and gender expression an aggravating factor in sentencing, leading to increased sentences for individuals who commit crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression. In other words it does criminalize pronoun usage.

As you can see the bill is more dangerous than you would first suspect. Is it the end of free speech? No, but it isn't a meaningless bill. It doesn't affect me, but I won't pretend like it doesn't matter.

"Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns." ---> It does outline, specifically, gender pronoun usage. I have zero issues with the bill except for that one bullet point. It comes down to a matter of morality and empathy, and being an immoral bastard alone is not a crime. Just generally regarded as distasteful and ugly.

Limiting what people can say and forcing them to say something are not the same thing.

I refrained from citing sources so anyone reading who's interested would take their own initiative. Would have worked out better if I had so I didn't look uninformed and gotten the name wrong.

LMG, sorry, Pence going to a game then leaving in "disgust" was a stunt. He knew very well that some 49ers were going to kneel during the Anthem. This isn't an discussion about whether that is correct or not. This is about a politician, using taxpayer money, goes to a game where he knows he's going to be offended. This reminds me of the great scene from Casablanca, where the head of police is "shocked" to find that gambling is going on at "Rick's". Then, shortly afterward, he is given the winnings from his own gambling. This is political theater. Another way to "stir up the base".

Once again, the issue of whether kneeling during the Anthem is acceptable or not is an entirely different issue. Pence was showboating and playing politics on the taxpayer's dime. You'll now notice that the POTUS is calling attention to this "issue", and claiming he was the impetus of this stunt.

LMG, sorry, Pence going to a game then leaving in "disgust" was a stunt. He knew very well that some 49ers were going to kneel during the Anthem. This isn't an discussion about whether that is correct or not. This is about a politician, using taxpayer money, goes to a game where he knows he's going to be offended. This reminds me of the great scene from Casablanca, where the head of police is "shocked" to find that gambling is going on at "Rick's". Then, shortly afterward, he is given the winnings from his own gambling. This is political theater. Another way to "stir up the base".

Once again, the issue of whether kneeling during the Anthem is acceptable or not is an entirely different issue. Pence was showboating and playing politics on the taxpayer's dime. You'll now notice that the POTUS is calling attention to this "issue", and claiming he was the impetus of this stunt.

NFL and their players have been putting on their 'stunts' in stadiums during our national anthem and in front of our flag since Kaepernick started this disrespect last year.

What VP Pence did was not a stunt but a statement saying what they were doing is NOT OK...period!!

What I've read about all this 'stunt' Pence talk is that it started with the Indy media and how the local sports media humiliated themselves in responding. Then the msm and social media spun it from there.

Here is some of what I have read and understand....

Quote

"Vice President Mike Pence has been an Indianapolis Colts fan for quite awhile. He served the state of Indiana in Congress during the record-setting heyday of Peyton Manning. So it was unsurprising to find out that Pence planned to be at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis yesterday when the Colts officially retired Manning’s jersey and inducted him into their Ring of Honor during halftime of their game against the San Francisco 49ers.

Former CBS Sports writer and current Indy Star sports columnist Gregg Doyel, a card-carrying left-wing activist, immediately registered his disgust by cranking out an article suggesting that, “Mike Pence used the Colts to spray paint Donald Trump’s political graffiti.” His hyperbole got him an invitation to appear on CNN’s "New Day" with fellow leftist Chris Cuomo.

He was far from alone in his indignation, though. In fact, the entire Indianapolis Star staff, which has notoriously opposed and besmirched Pence for years, apparently saw their opportunity to issue a collective, coordinated strike.

Wait a minute. Holder (and Keefer, and Doyel), have fallen all over themselves applauding the publicity stunt of players taking a knee during the anthem for weeks now. Why are some publicity stunts more equal than others?

Local radio star Tony Katz, who fills in occasionally for nationally syndicated Dana Loesch, asked Holder to clarify whether it qualifies as a publicity stunt when players kneel. Holder’s response was choice:

“Probably to you, because you either aren’t listening to them or don’t care. Good day.”

Sorry, but that’s just too funny. I’m guessing Holder doesn’t even realize that the exact same thing can be said about his response to Pence: Holder either isn’t listening to Pence when he explains why he left, or he doesn’t care. The vice president stayed, stood, and honored the flag and anthem while it was performed. He chose not to stay and honor the players who disrespected that flag with his presence at their game – like countless other fans have done as well. This isn’t that difficult to understand.

Keefer, Doyel, and Holder don’t want anyone telling players they have to stand for the anthem. But they’re totally fine with telling the vice president he has to stay for the game. This might be why they write about balls for a living."

So, the tweets by PResident Trump, where he said this was something he and Pence had talked about, don't indicate this was a planned maneuver? OK. I won't bother linking to them, because it wouldn't make any difference. So, as with the other political thread, I'm done. I've got some paint that needs watching to make sure it dries correctly.